A former hairdresser´s claim for pharmacy accident compensation has been resolved for nearly $1.2 million in a hearing of the Ventura County Superior Court.
Fifty-four year old Wanda Katz from Port Hueneme in California was visiting her local CVS Pharmacy when she was knocked over by an employee pushing a merchandize cart. Wanda – a former hairdresser who now holds a license in real estate cosmetology – was crouching down to look at goods on a lower shelf at the time and, when she was knocked over, she claims to have hit her head on the shelf.
However, Wanda did not believe she had suffered a serious injury and failed to seek professional medical advice for six weeks until she started suffering pains in her neck. Wanda´s doctor referred her for an MRI, which revealed a cerebellar lesion. Wanda was mistakenly told that she had suffered a stroke and it was not until eighteen months later that the correct cause of her injury was identified.
With the new information, Wanda made a claim for pharmacy accident compensation, alleging that the store´s employee had been negligent by not looking where they were going, and that CVS Pharmacy was vicariously liable for its employee´s actions. Wanda alleged in her claim that her brain injury had resulted in a balance and sensory disorder that prevented her from pursuing her career.
Due to the long passage of time between the accident and the diagnosis of persistent postural-perceptual dizziness (PPPD), CVS contested the claim for pharmacy accident compensation. The store also claimed that Wanda was exaggerating the extent of her injuries and had contributed to the cause of the accident by crouching down adjacent to the merchandize cart while it was stationary.
As no negotiated settlement could be reached, Wanda´s claim for pharmacy accident compensation went to be resolved at the Ventura County Superior Court, where the case was heard by a jury before Judge Rocky J. Baio. At the hearing, the jury were shown CCTV footage of how Wanda´s accident occurred and heard from medical experts about the injury that Wanda had sustained.
After ten days of testimony, and two days of deliberations, the jury found CVS Pharmacy 100% liable for Wanda´s injury and awarded her $1,190,105 in settlement of her claim for pharmacy accident compensation. The award covers Wanda´s past and future pain and suffering, and her past and future loss of income due to being unable to pursue her career.
The hearing of a compensation claim for a slip and fall injury in Lowes has begun at the Nevada Eighth Judicial District Court before Judge Ronald Israel.
The compensation claim for a slip and fall injury in Lowes was made by Kelly Hendrickson (38) from Las Vegas, who visited the Home Improvement Store on S. Fort Apache Road in July 2013 to shop for palm trees.
As Kelly was entering the garden center area of the store, she slipped on water on the concrete floor and fell. Kelly fractured her skull in the accident and sustained brain damage – due to which she has lost her senses of taste and smell.
Kelly sought legal advice and – after her lawyer had discovered thirty other slip and fall accidents in the company´s stores in the past five years – made a compensation claim for a slip and fall injury in Lowes.
Lowes denied all responsibility for Kelly´s injuries and argued that she should have watched where she was going as there was a four-foot-tall caution cone on the floor warning customers of the slip hazard.
As no resolution to the compensation claim for a slip and fall injury in Lowes could be negotiated, the case went to the Nevada Eighth Judicial District Court where it was heard by a jury before Judge Ronald Israel.
At the hearing, lawyers representing Lowes claimed that the company had an excellent safety record in its stores and that the thirty previous slip and fall accidents were “one in a million” events.
Kelly´s lawyers told the jury that Lowes had been negligent by failing to provide a safe shopping experience for its customers, and also for erasing the video tapes from thirty CCTV cameras that were located within the S. Fort Apache Road store.
The hearing of the compensation claim for a slip and fall injury in Lowes continues, and is expected to carry on throughout next week.
A jury has awarded a shopper more than $2.5 million compensation in settlement of her Costco injury compensation claim made after a slip and fall accident.
On 8 June 2011, Yvette Gastello (35) was walking into her local Costco at Van Nuys in Los Angeles, when she slipped on fluid outside of the store that had accumulated due to a subcontractor washing out a temporary porta potty stall.
Although she did not feel any immediate injury, Yvette started to experience pain in her lower back three days later. She visited a chiropractor and an acupuncturist, but her pain persisted and Yvette was ultimately referred for an MRI by her doctor.
Yvette was diagnosed with an aggravation of a pre-existing spondylosis condition in her lumbar vertebrae. She underwent anterior and posterior lumbar fusion surgery, and made a Costco injury compensation claim after learning that the surgery would have been unnecessary had she not been hurt in the slip and fall accident.
The claim against Costco and the sub-contractor who had been washing out the temporary porta potty stall was heard at the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, where the jury was told that both defendants were jointly negligent due to their failure to warn customers of the hazard and divert them away from the slippery area.
Defense lawyers argued that Yvette was the author of her own misfortune by failing to look where she was walking when she entered the store. As Yvette could not remember under questioning whether she had seen the subcontractor using a hose before or after she fell, defense lawyers argued that she might not have noticed any sign warning of the hazard either.
The jury found in Yvette´s favor, and awarded her $2,856,000 compensation in settlement of her Costco injury compensation claim – subsequently reducing the award by 10 percent to reflect her comparative negligence. 50 percent liability for Yvette´s injury was attributed to the subcontractor, with the remaining 40 percent liability attributed to Costco.
A woman, who injured her lower spine when slipping and falling in a Stop & Shop store, has settled her injury claim for a slip on a grape in a supermarket.
Bonnie Gutierrez (50) was shopping with her husband – Milton – on 31st October 2010 at her local Stop & Shop. As the couple waited their turn by the checkout, Bonnie walked into the adjacent land to throw an item into a wastebasket.
As she moved towards the wastebasket, Bonnie slipped on a grape on the floor and fell hard on her back. She was taken to a nearby emergency room by ambulance, where she was treated for pain in her lower back, x-rayed and advised to see an orthopedist.
The orthopedist diagnosed Bonnie with an annular tear and a herniated disc, and administered a course of treatment which included four epidural steroid injections, three nerve blocks, and two discograms. Bonnie also underwent lumbar fusion surgery and a year of physical therapy.
However, none of the treatment has been able to relieve Bonnie of a pain in her back. Since her accident, the ongoing pain has prevented Bonnie from returning to work. She is unable to bend or lift, cannot sit or stand for long periods of time, and experiences broken sleep because of the pain when she changes position.
After speaking with a lawyer, Bonnie made an injury claim for a slip on a grape in a supermarket – alleging that the floor surface in Stop & Shop was hazardous. Bonnie claimed in her action that both she and her husband had seen squashed grapes on the floor by the checkout, and that there were dust balls and other unidentified debris littering the supermarket.
Stop & Shop denied negligence and disputed the injury claim for a slip on a grape in a supermarket. Stop & Shop argued that the floor of the supermarket was reasonably clean and that Bonnie was the creator of her accident by failing to watch where she was going. The supermarket also claimed that Bonnie was comparatively negligent.
With the dispute of liability continuing, a date was set for Bonnie´s injury claim for a slip on a grape in a supermarket to be heard at the Somerset County Superior Court. However, shortly before the hearing was scheduled to commence, Bonnie agreed to an out of court settlement of her claim amounting to $950,000.
Changes to personal injury claims procedures introduced on 1st August 2013 will speed up compensation settlements in claims with a value of up to £25,000.
The second of two changes to the Civil Procedure Rules took effect on 1st August 2013, and whereas the changes to the personal injury claims procedures in April of this year took away some of the benefits of making “Contingency Fee” compensation claims, the most recent changes should allow claimants to receive their compensation settlements within a shorter time frame.
The new procedures will see the length of time negligent parties and their insurance companies have to acknowledge “Letters of Claim” reduced to one day from twenty-one days, and the number of days available for them to conduct their own investigations into a claim reduced from ninety days to thirty days (forty days in the event of a compensation claim for an accident at work).
The aim of the new procedures is to reduce the costs of pursuing a claim for personal injury compensation when the value of the claim is less than £25,000 and when liability is not disputed. Any negligent party or insurance company who fails to adhere to these guidelines will not be able to take advantage of the Ministry of Justice Claims Portal and will face higher costs in defending the claim.
There are numerous exceptions to the new Civil Procedure Rules and there will be no change to the personal injury claims procedures in the following events:-
If an injury has been sustained due to the negligence of a private individual – for example if a homeowner has damaged the pavement outside their house over which you have tripped and fallen
If the injury which is being claimed for is an acquired disease either at work (for example COPD due to your working environment) or a place of public access (for example food poisoning in a restaurant)
If an injury has been sustained in an accident or scenario involving more than one party – for example a car accident in which more than one person was to blame
If an injury was sustained in an accident for which you were partly to blame or if your injury was exacerbated due to your own lack of care (also known as “Contributory Negligence”).
If a loss, an injury or the deterioration of an existing condition was due to medical negligence – either at a hospital or in private practice such as at the dentist
If you have developed mesothelioma due to exposure to asbestos, or if you are claiming on behalf of an individual who has died due to mesothelioma cancer
If you have sustained an injury due to the negligence of a party who is uninsured, insolvent or untraceable – such as if you are injured in a hit and run accident.
The changes apply to injuries which have been sustained or diagnosed in England or Wales from 1st August onwards, and do not affect the length of time you have after an injury has been discovered in which to claim personal injury compensation – currently three years in the UK.
Should you require further information about how the changes to the personal injury claims procedures may affect you in your particular circumstances, you are advised to speak with a personal injury lawyer at the earliest opportunity.
Figures acquired by the East Anglian Daily Times have revealed that Essex County Council paid £222,137 in compensation for pupils injured at school between 2008 and 2010.
The compensation settlements account for seventeen successful claims for pupils injured at school during the three year period – with several claims for accidents which occurred in 2011 and 2012 still to be agreed.
Among the highest settlements of compensation for pupils injured at school were:
• £30,544 injury compensation for a trip on a school step
• £28,972 for a child who injured his face against a window ledge
• £27,780 compensation for a slip on a wet floor at school
• Two amounts of £24,650 and £23,580 paid in settlement of claims for falls from school climbing equipment
A spokesperson for Essex County Council commented on the figures. “Essex County Council takes its health, safety and wellbeing responsibilities seriously and is committed to complying with its legal, moral and financial obligations”.
However, County Councillor Julie Young said some parents might find the figures disturbing – and insisted more should be done to improve health and safety in schools. In relation to the settlements of compensation for pupils injured at schools in Essex she stated “It is my understanding the council offers training but I question whether there is enough analysis done. I think more needs to be done.”
A woman, who sustained a blunt closed head injury when a store sign fell from its fascia and struck her, has resolved her compensation claim for a shop sign injury after a court hearing.
The woman – identified as Ms Benham (61) – brought her claim for shop sign injury against the tReds shoe shop in Old Christchurch Road, Bournemouth, after the fifteen feet metal store sign fell from its fascia and hit her on the head on October 2010.
In her action against the shoe store, Ms Benham claimed that she had suffered a head injury due to the company´s failure to establish or maintain any adequate system of regular inspection or maintenance of the sign, and also allege that she had developed a temporary anxiety disorder as a result of her accident.
The store denied liability for her injuries; claiming that regular inspections of the store sign took place. However, lawyers acting on behalf of Ms Benham discovered that the sign had fallen due to the deterioration of the fascia and that the rot in the wood could not have possibly been discovered by the company´s inspection of the sign, which was conducted from ground level.
tReds continued to contest Ms Benham´s compensation claim for shop sign injury and the claim was resolved only after a hearing at Bournemouth and Poole County Court. At the hearing, Judge Maston concluded that the onus was on tReds to prove that the dangerous condition of the sign could not have been discovered by a suitable inspection.
As tReds were in control of the premises and unable to establish that the accident had happened due to anything other than the sign “owing to want of repair”, the Judge found in favour of Ms Benham and awarded her £18,000 in settlement of her compensation claim for shop sign injury.
A pensioner, who fell and broke her shoulder on a shopping centre travelator, has been awarded 30,000 Euros in compensation for fall on the moving walkway by a judge in Dublin.
At the Circuit Civil Court in Dublin, Judge Jacqueline Linnane heard how Rosaleen Hill (79) of Terenure in Dublin had been returning to the underground parking lot of the Ashleaf Shopping Centre in Dublin, when the shopping trolley she was taking down to her car started to run away from her. As Rosaleen struggled to hold on to the shopping trolley, she fell and was dragged along the moving walkway – severely lacerating her knee and breaking her right shoulder in three places.
After receiving treatment for her injuries, Rosaleen sought legal advice and made a claim for fall on moving walkway compensation against the Ashleaf Shopping Centre, the company responsible for managing the shopping centre – Kessow Limited – and Dunnes Stores, the store in which she had been doing her shopping. Dunnes Stores denied their liability, claiming that the trolley which had been responsible for Rosaleen´s injuries was not one of theirs.
Judge Jacqueline Linnane heard testimony in court from a forensic engineer that the rogue trolley selected by Rosaleen from a shared shopping trolley area was fitted with smooth wheels and unsuitable for a downhill moving walkway. The forensic engineer explained that the type of shopping trolleys supplied by Dunnes Stores were fitted with corrugated rubber wheels which locked into the surface grooves on the moving walkway.
His evidence was supported by the testimony of the manufacturer which supplies Dunnes Stores with their shopping trolleys who explained to the court that their company had never supplied Dunnes Stores with the type of trolley responsible for Rosaleen´s accident. Judge Jacqueline Linnane determined that the likelihood was that Rosaleen had collected a trolley which had been deposited by shopfitters working at the store and dismissed the case against Dunnes Stores.
However, the judge found Gary Smith, trading as The Ashleaf Shopping Centre and Kessow Limited jointly negligent for failing to provide Rosaleen with a safe environment in which to shop and ordered them to pay Rosaleen 30,000 Euros in compensation for a fall on a moving walkway.
Three new claims for shopping centre parking lot injury at Highcross Shopping Centre in Leicester have been made following a successful claim for an injury sustained on the access bridge from the parking lot late last year and compensation for slipping and breaking an ankle being awarded to another shopper just a few weeks ago.
In December 2011, Gweneth Bowler (64) from Quorn in Leicestershire successfully sued Highcross Shopping Centre after fracturing her hip and shoulder on a shopping trip to the complex with her daughter, and earlier this month an unnamed shopper was awarded 3,700 pounds after slipping and breaking her ankle on the same access bridge from the shopping centre parking lot.
Now three more claims for shopping centre parking lot injury have come to light – the most serious involving a forty-year-old woman who slipped and broke her femur in the parking area and required emergency surgery. Claims for shopping centre parking lot injury can be made up to three years after an accident has occurred and this may not be the end of the claims against the shopping centre despite improvements being made.
A Leicester City Council official had testified in Gweneth Bowler´s claim for compensation against the shopping centre that poor drainage – both on the bridge and in the parking lot – represented a serious slip hazard. He also pointed to a lack of adequate cleaning presenting further risk of injury and, although the council´s recommendations were listened to, anybody visiting the shopping complex in the past three years who has sustained an injury attributable to the previous lack of care by the shopping centre management is still entitled to claim shopping centre parking lot injury compensation.
A shopper, who slipped on a discarded baby wipe in Argos and damaged his shoulder when he fell, has been awarded 17,500 Euros in slip in Argos injury compensation at Dublin´s Circuit Civil Court.
Declan Conroy from East Wall, Dublin, had been shopping in the Henry Street branch of Argos in May 2008 when the accident occurred. On the way to the counter to order a lawnmower for his mother, he slipped on a baby wipe which had been left on the floor and fell – badly injuring his shoulder.
After receiving medical treatment, Declan made a claim for slip in Argos injury compensation against the store – claiming that their system of checking the store for potential hazards was inadequate and he had suffered an injury as a result.
Argos denied liability; arguing that CCTV footage revealed the presence of the baby wipe just six minutes before Declan´s accident and contending that staff could not be asked to constantly monitor the condition of the floor in a low-risk store.
However, Judge Jacqueline Linnane at the Circuit Civil Court heard a forensic engineer – testifying on behalf of Declan – explain that because of the extra footfall in the queuing area, a higher level of vigilance should be applied. It was also revealed that CCTV footage from five minutes before the baby wipe first appeared showed a woman pushing a baby buggy through the area.
After hearing all the evidence, Judge Jacqueline Linnane ruled that on the balance of probabilities it was the woman with the baby buggy who was responsible for dropping the baby wipe and, as more than ten minutes would have passed between the hazard being present and Declan sustaining his injury, she was attaching liability to Argos. She awarded Declan 17,500 Euros for slip in Argos injury compensation plus costs.
A 17-year-old girl has had a settlement of compensation for an allergic reaction to eyebrow wax approved in court.
The unnamed teenager suffered the allergic reaction after visiting the Crop Beauty Salon in October 2011 where, after her eyebrow treatment had finished, she continued to experience a burning sensation.
By the time the girl returned home her eyebrows had swollen and reddened and she had developed a headache. She attended the Accident and Emergency Department of her local hospital where she was diagnosed with a severe allergic reaction which continued for three weeks.
After seeking legal advice, the girl made a claim for an allergic reaction to eyebrow wax treatment against the salon, claiming that the salon was negligent in failing to ensure that a safe waxing product was used which would not result in an allergic reaction.
The Crop Beauty Salon admitted liability for the girl´s injuries and an out of court settlement of compensation for an allergic reaction to eyebrow wax treatment of 1,000 pounds was agreed. As the girl was still under the age of eighteen, the settlement had to be approved by a court before the allergic reaction to eyebrow wax treatment could be concluded.
A woman who sustained head, neck and shoulder injuries when part of the ceiling fell on her at her local bank has settled her bank accident injury compensation claim out of court for 1,500 pounds.
The unnamed 47 year old woman had been standing at the counter of her local Barclays Bank when a brick fell from the ceiling and struck her on the head. As she fell forward, more bricks and a light fitting fell from the ceiling – hitting the woman on the base of her neck and across the shoulders.
The woman suffered a laceration to her scalp, bruising and a minor head injury. Soreness in her shoulders restricted movement in her upper limbs and the woman suffered headaches and frequent nausea attacks over the next two weeks.
After seeking legal advice, the woman made a claim for bank accident injury compensation against Barclays Bank on the grounds that the bank had breached statutory duty in failing to ensure that the premises were adequately maintained and structurally safe.
Barclays admitted liability for the bank accident and a settlement of bank accident injury compensation amounting to 1,500 pounds was negotiated between the woman´s lawyers and Barclays public liability insurers without the need for the claim to be heard in court.
The Food Standards Agency is investigating salmonella in watermelon claims following the death of one person and thirty other reported cases of food poisoning in the UK relating to pre-packed ready-to-eat watermelon slices.
Cases of similar illness have also been reported in Germany and the Republic of Ireland, and officials at the Health Protection Agency are treating the outbreak of salmonella poisoning with particular caution – issuing advice to wash all fruit and vegetables thoroughly before eating them.
The origin of the salmonella contaminated watermelons is not yet firmly established, but they are believed to come from a food preparation unit in Brazil; where the watermelons may have been washed in unclean water or cut with a contaminated knife. Of the thirty people known to have developed the “Salmonella Newton” strain of salmonella, fifteen have confirmed that they had eaten watermelon within the preceding week.
The salmonella in watermelon claims victims in similar ways to other strains of food poisoning, with victims suffering from diarrhoea, vomiting, fever and abdominal pains which last from four to seven days. Some people will need a course of antibiotics to prevent complications such as septicaemia and infection, and people recognising the early symptoms of food poisoning are advised to seek medical attention immediately.
Subject to the medical prognosis, it will be possible for salmonella in watermelon claims for compensation to be made against the retail outlets responsible for selling the contaminated watermelons. This is most likely to be snack kiosks or small shops with self-service fridges rather than the larger grocery stores, although some cafes and restaurants may also be liable if they have served the contaminated watermelons on their premises.
In order to assist with determining liability and the preparation of injury compensation claims, those suffering from salmonella in watermelon food poisoning are advised to speak with a lawyer at the earliest possible opportunity.
A woman, who sustained shoulder and hip injuries when slipping on the access bridge to a Leicestershire shopping centre, has secured a settlement for falling on wet floor in a shopping centre against the owners of the site.
Gweneth Bowler from Quorn in Leicestershire was visiting the Highcross Shopping Centre in Leicester with her daughter when the accident occured in January 2011. The 64-year old grandmother was crossing a covered walkway which connects the shopping centre parking lot with the shops, when she slipped on a wet surface and fractured her right shoulder and hip in the fall.
While recuperating from her injuries, Gweneth wrote to Leicester City Council about the hazard, prompting the council to initiate a health and safety inspection. The inspection revealed several areas where the owners of the premises – Hammerson PLC – were failing in their health and safety obligations including a lack of cleaning to prevent the floor surface of the walkway from becoming slippery in bad weather.
After taking legal advice, Gweneth filed a claim for slips, trips and falls compensation against Hammerson PLC and, with negligence by the owners already established, the claim was quickly resolved for an undisclosed amount.
A woman injured by an item falling from a shelf in a shop has been awarded a £30,000 compensation award in the Circuit Civil Court.
Breeda Redican was hurt in July 2009 when a tin of paint fell on her foot from a shelf at the Homebase store. The incident occured when Redican requested help finding a specific type of paint from a sales assistant. The assistant showed her where the paint was on a shelf at face level height but simply stood beside Redican while she attempted to left the can of paint. The tin of paint was 2.5 litres and handle on the tin was not visible because the cans were packed tight together. Redican was not able to carry the heavy paint tin and it slipped and fell on her right foot. Redican was not wearing shoes but flip-flops and needed stitching on her toes. Redican has suffered continual reduced mobility in her foot with some additional pain.
Homebase denied any negligence but the judge decided on an award of £30,000 compensation.
Michael Hogan was eleven years old when the accident happened in 2006. Climbing over a grocery store parking lot fence, he caught his leg on an unprotected and protruding nail, which tore a deep V-shaped wound into the inside of his left thigh.
Michael’s injuries were so severe that he had to have a double layer of inner flesh stitched together while under a general anaesthetic and, although he has recovered now, will be left with a permanent scar as a reminder of his injury for the rest of his life.
Liability was uncontested by the owners of the shopping centre and the judge was told that the defendants had made a settlement offer of £44,555. The judge approved the settlement offer, also ordering that it should be invested in court funds until Michael’s 18th birthday in March 2015.